At some point, every blogger faces the question of whether or not they should moderate comments. The primary reasons for moderation are rational and simple:

• Kill spam
• Control trolls

Worthy reasons for sure. Nobody wants or needs spam and trolls camping out on your site. But do the risks outweigh the benefits gained from comment moderation?

There are three levels of comment moderation:

1. No Comments/No Moderation. A blog is intended for broadcast purposes only. Few can get away with this. One exception is Seth Godin and I’m not exactly sure I’d consider his site a blog (see below).
2. Comments/Moderation. A blog has comments, but these comments are moderated by the publisher. It can be hard to tell if your comment is going to get sequestered until after you click Post. If you’ve commented on blogs before, you know what I mean.
3. Comments/No Moderation. A blog has comments and these comments are posted in real time once you click Post. I’ve made the choice to go this path with comments here and my other blogs (which might reveal a bit of bias).

Let’s put aside the No Comments/No Moderation level since it shouldn’t be part of your game plan if you’re publishing a blog. I would even suggest that any site that doesn’t offer the ability for readers to respond and interact isn’t really a blog. It’s just a broadcast engine.

This leaves the other two levels and the issue of which method to use. If you choose to set up moderation, here are a couple of questions to answer:

• Is an objective of your blog to inspire interaction among your readers?
• Can you quickly approve comments so they enter the dialogue stream shortly after posting?
• …And if not, are you okay with your readers either not bothering to comment in the future or not returning altogether?

I apologize if it seems that I’m setting up this argument a little too much. My experience is that moderation rarely corrects the problems it’s intended to solve. There are several spam-filtering tools available for blog platforms (e.g., Wordpress comes with Akismet; Typepad has its own built-in solution). These tools nail the spam comments before they even hit your site. And if you’re concerned about trolls posting inappropriate comments, let’s approach from another angle: what is the probability of true troll behavior (not to be confused with opposing viewpoints) appearing on your blog to the degree that the comment needs to be deleted?

I argue that moderation imposes significant risks to the health of your blog’s community – particularly if your blog is new. When someone leaves a comment on your blog, they want it to post in real time. They want to be part of the dialogue. When you sequester their comment until you get around to approving it, you’ve effectively kicked them out of participating in the community. Worse, most folks don’t know when their comment is going to get approved so they move on…and you’ve potentially lost them as both commenter and reader. If you’re truly worried about trolls, put a solid commenter policy in place letting your readers know what happens to inappropriate messages.

So ask yourself if moderating comments adds or detracts from your blog’s interactive experience. And unless you have good cause to moderate (and yes, there are a few out there), promote an open dialogue in your community.

Yesterday, Steve Roesler asked Will You Survive Your Branding? I’ve actually been struggling with this concept of personal branding and even though I’ve presented on the subject a few times, I’m still a bit of a skeptic. There has been something nagging at me, a voice inside that has grown steadily louder that something about personal branding doesn’t jive with me. But something about Steve’s post provided a pedestal for my inner voice. Here’s the full comment I left:

Lately, I’ve been thinking how great individuals of the past would have “branded” themselves. Think Ben Franklin could have put together an effective elevator speech lasting under 30 seconds? How about Tom Jefferson or Marie Curie? And for that matter…would they even have entertained the notion of engaging in personal branding?

It’s with this in mind that I continue to feel a bit sad about where we are right now. We’re expected to distill our essence down to something that can be drunk from a thimble. For those of us who curiously explore many things and have a bit of a renaissance soul, the exercise of personal branding is one that feels awkward and confusing.

The question that we face is: how to blaze a different path in today’s world? It’s not easy to swim against the current which preaches the necessity of the singular expertise, the narrowness of personal expression. Ahh, but maybe this is just the time to reinvent the renaissance thinker, doer, explorer, creator. Every challenge is an opening for opportunity.

Are you a fellow renaissance soul who openly rebels against the constrictions of today’s personal branding movement? Speak out and make your voice heard. We can be more than one thing. We can reclaim the idea of passionate eclecticism that guided the great minds of the past. What do you think?

As much as it may offend our current animal-loving sensibilities, the spectacle of bear baiting was once a very popular form of entertainment (and in certain areas of the world, it remains an attraction). Basically, it involved tying a bear to a post in the middle of an arena and attacking the beast with large, trained dogs. It was also common to provoke the bear further by poking it with long, sharp prods. Cruel? Without a doubt.

But I argue that the very same mentality that conjured this sport into creation remains with us today. We still love to sit around and watch corporate C-Levels get skewered for their mistakes or whole brands get mauled when they screw up. And now with social media, it becomes a full participation sport. (And lest you think I’m pointing a finger outward, there are indeed three pointing squarely back at me…I’m unfortunately guilty of this behavior, too.)

So what does this actually say about us? Have we really civilized ourselves and evolved out of our barbaric and bloodthirsty selves? Perhaps not. Perhaps we still love a good show where we can easily provide instant judgment of missteps, quick criticism of poor decisions. Hopefully, we’re not doomed to this quest for base entertainment…hopefully, we have the potential to be better. Here are a couple of ideas for how we can exit the arena and leave the poor bears in peace:

Let’s interactively communicate with the C-Levels, the corporate brand managers, the folks who do exist behind the actions we’re itching to criticize. For Pete’s sake, its as if there’s no room for error anymore. One foul-up and you’re an incompetent hack who deserves to be standing on a street corner begging for some spare change. What has happened to giving space to learn from mistakes? Fewer and fewer executives and brands are going to try to be innovative if they think their efforts are going lambasted by anyone with a Twitter account or blog. So instead, I suggest we be a bit more constructive, offer a bit more feedback, try to act as part of the solution.  Yeah, it may mean we have to try to be a little less cynical. Hell, you might just be able to chalk it up to your one-good-deed-for-the-day. That’ll feel good.

Perhaps the hardest of act of all is not giving in to the pressure of instant judgment. Yes, this means going against the grain and choosing a different perspective in a hypermobilized social media world. But look at it this way: in an increasingly homogenized world where everyone is seeking a way to be unique, your decision to withhold criticism until all the facts are known could be a critical personal differentiator. So, next time Amazon deletes a book from a Kindle, let’s help them learn from this action because they’re maneuvering in uncharted waters. Or next time the CMO from a retailer forgets he’s still responsible for customer satisfaction, let’s offer not only some constructive feedback, but acknowledge that she or he is actually a fallible human being capable of forgiveness.

I’m game for making the attempt if you are. What do you say?

From Marketing Vox comes Half of Communicators Think Twitter’s a Fad. Actually, I would wager that you could substitute just about any business-related profession in place of “Communicators.” It happens every time a evolutionary shift takes place and individuals are confronted with the need to change. The data behind this latest article comes from Ragan Communications and PollStream. And for more commentary on the study, definitely read blogposts from MarketingCharts and Ragan (the comments are insightful, as well).

For me, here’s what the study drives home.

1. A shift from the masses to the micro.
Here’s a quote from Bob Hirschfeld, senior public information officer for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

“[Twitter’s a fad] because everybody’s doing it. Ashton Kutcher and CNN have a steady supply of fans who want to know what they do. People like us, people with a job to do, every so often we do something of interest to the general public [but] we don’t have that steady supply of stuff that the public is interested in.”

I think this viewpoint spotlights how professionals are struggling to overcome the old focus on how to speak to the masses. If you can’t speak to as many people as possible, then the effort is futile. You see this every time someone uses generalized words like “public”; in this case, Hirschfeld is concerned there’s just not a “steady supply of stuff that the public is interested in.” I’ll submit that aiming for the masses is no longer an efficient or productive action. The individuals and organizations who will succeed in the new world of business will be the ones who know their power niches and can communicate with them in a personally relevant way.

2. Broadcasting might not be dying, but it’s no longer the sole answer.
With that said, I don’t believe that broadcasting is dying. There’s still a place for it as a communications vehicle. Websites such as CNN, BBC News, ESPN, etc. still serve up broadcasted information. But the critical difference is that broadcasting is no longer the only mechanism for communicating with your audience. Most of the better sites understand this and allow visitors to personalize their delivery (see BBC News for a good example).

Other sites build around smaller, more interest-focused communities, which takes the micro to deeper level (see what Sony has done with their Backstage 101 or what DadLabs.com is doing with fathers). Someone tied to the old ways of viewing business might see this as a negative fracturing of their audience base. They’re liking thinking, “Crap, now I have to have multiple talking points for all these different audiences.” And again, that thinking exposes the mass approach that is no longer viable.

But rather than freaking out and seeing this as yet another sign of the apocalypse, consider what incredible advantages the micro-level offers to business. Rather than taking the shotgun approach that tries to hit as many people as possible (with the inherent dilution of overall message), communicators can approach each community and audience niche as a tailor-made occasion to develop messages that are relevant to the individual.

3. The future will require changes to your business thinking and operations.
We’re in the midst of a huge shift away from one way communication (at both mass and micro levels) and toward multi-vocal dialogue. And yes…this will require some changes to the way organizations think and operate, as well as to the way they communicate internally and with customers. As Josh McColough, a communicator at Sherman Health, notes: “The trick is to keep information coming and conversation active.”

Effective business is going to be about building relationships and personally-relevant dialogue rather than continuing the old trick of blindly bludgeoning a public with broadcasted communications. The only question is: Which side of this divide do you want to find yourself on?

In an organization, nothing starts a mad fit of eyerolling and quizzical looks among employees quite like management decrees. It’s not unlike the images we have of royal decrees being issues in olden times. From atop his tower, the king stands before his subjects and issues proclamations that often have little positive bearing on their lives (e.g., your taxes will be increased because I want to fight a war in a land you’ve never heard of – or – this is your new queen, now bow down and worship her). But hey…he’s the king and do any damn thing he likes because he’s the king (including repressing the local peasants who disagree with his claim to allmighty power).

Management decrees (oh alright, if it makes you feel better we’ll call them “decisions”) often come from the same thinking: “This is a good decision from my vantage point and employees will just need to accept it.” These decisions don’t need to be weighed against whether they make sense to the employee, whether they mesh with their day-to-day experience, whether they make their working lives easier. The employee is supposed to follow the orders because the individual proclaiming them is their king boss.

For a more modern day example, CNN reports the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs are seriously contemplating the idea of creating a tobacco-free military. At a surface level, it sounds honorable and makes sense since so many VA hospitals cope with the fallout of tobacco-related illnesses. But dig a little deeper and it shows the same misguided thinking that is the hallmark of one-way managerial decision-making: As your boss, I know what’s best and while I may pretend to care about what you think, I really don’t care enough to listen. If the Pentagon did listen, these are the things they might actually hear:

“When you’re tired and you’ve been going days on end with minimum sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference,” said Gen. Russel Honore, who was in charge of the Army’s training programs before he retired.

Other soldiers questioned whether this was a good time to stamp out smoking, given the Army’s concern with a high suicide rate. “For some, unfortunately, they feel that smoking is their stress relief. Well if you take it away, what is the replacement?” said Sgt. 1st Class Gary Johnson.

(Note: Let me say that I’m not advocating smoking or tobacco use. I enjoy an occasional cigar with friends, but also fully know the health risks. I’ve had my share of relatives who’ve dealt with the connected illnesses such as cancer and emphysema. But if you haven’t noticed, this blogpost isn’t about tobacco…it’s really about the hubris of managerial decision-making.)

There is something to be learned from getting out from behind the desk, the clinical wording of studies and the blind paternalism that passes for managerial decision-making. Demanding and decreeing change will likely get you nowhere at best; it might just cost you respect and influence among your employees. Bring your people into the decision-making process and learn how decisions will interplay with their daily working reality. Your decisions will be more relevant and your chances of having filth flung at you during company meetings will be lessened.